The WSJ On Harriet Miers: Too Cautious, Wrong Message
Add the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board to the list of those disappointed that the president didn’t pick a well-qualified ideologue:
We’ve always thought Mr. Bush should welcome an ideological Court fight, both because it would educate the public about the Constitutional issues at stake, and because he ultimately would have prevailed in putting another conservative jurist on the bench. In choosing Ms. Miers, Mr. Bush missed an opportunity for that kind of debate.He also missed a chance to send a message that taking firm sides in our judicial debates is not politically disqualifying. The President could have selected from numerous qualified men and women–minority and white–who have spent their lives arguing for conservative principles on the bench or off. We’re referring to the Michael Luttigs, the J. Harvie Wilkinsons, the Edith Joneses.
Is the President sending a message that these distinguished conservatives are too controversial to be nominated for the High Court, even with a Senate containing 55 Republicans? The lesson this nomination in particular will send to younger lawyers is to keep your opinions to yourself, don’t join the Federalist Society, and, heaven forbid, never write an op-ed piece. This isn’t healthy in a democracy, and in this sense a Supreme Court fight over legal philosophy that ended in a conservative victory would have demonstrated to the left that Borking no longer works.
Well, maybe so, maybe so…and this is certainly a step above most anti-Miers arguments I’ve seen to date. Still, I’m not saying Miers is a choice that should cause us all to jump with joy…I’m just saying give her a shot, and the Journal’s editorial staff apparently agrees:
We will no doubt learn more about Ms. Miers in the coming weeks, and perhaps any doubts will prove groundless. But for now, Mr. Bush is asking his supporters to accept his judgment about his personal lawyer as an act of faith.
Maybe Bush should not have put forth such an unknown quantity…but he did. Now, let’s be patient and see what comes out of the hearings…
I don’t like the assumptions people are making about this nomination. By nominating her, Bush was NOT sending the message that qualified conservatives aren’t good enough; he was sending the message that the person he wanted didn’t happen to be one of those qualified conservatives. Maybe next time he’ll pick someone like Luttig. Or maybe not. But that’s his choice and it has nothing to do with sending covert messages about hiding your views.
What if…
Bush has nominated another “moderate” (i.e., not obvious conservative) to pave the way for Stevens and/or Ginsberg to step down? If he had put forth two staunch conservatives instead of Roberts and Miers, the liberals of the bench might have dug in their heels and decided to stick around as long as they could…
I’m just sayin’
And for the record, I wish Republicans would stop eating their young on this nomination. The Democrats seem able to hold their nose and take whatever their leaders dish out, but Republicans seem to delight in second-guessing and trashing their leadership when things don’t go exactly the way they want…
Relish, interesting theory…but I do disagree a little on the eating their young – not that I don’t wish the Republicans wouldn’t (I do), but rather, as a frequent visitor to the dark den of Daily Kos-dom, I find plenty of internicine warfare there…
Yeah, if anything “eating their young” seems to be the favorite activity of the far left in its ever-present search for self-righteous purity. So it unnerves me to see folks on the right engaging in it.
I’m not saying the pick should be above criticism. I’m a little unnerved by her lack of a track record, and the complaint that even if she’s swell, there were better candidates to pick resonates with me. I think President Bush does rely a lot on his gut and admires good personal stories, and while sometimes that means we get a Condi Rice, other times it means we get a Bernie Kerrick.
But when that leads to “I can never trust this president again” hyperventilating like I’ve seen in the comments on some sites, I’m left thinking that any time you start sounding as excitable as Andrew Sullivan, it’s probably a good idea to dial it back a bit.
Yeah, Dennis, have you read some of the letters Michelle Malkins excerpts (I like Michelle, by the way, she’s been very kind to this blog – we just disagree on this issue)? I recall the exact same reaction to the original Gang of 14 deal – how many times can the same people give up on Bush?
BTW, I’m gonna have to start being nicer to Andrew – he was kind enough to link to my Krugman post, and man – the gift that keeps on giving! Not as big as an Instalanche, but very steady, very solid hits…
P.S. – I’m only kidding…I’m not for sale…
P.P.S. – Nah, that’s a lie…I AM for sale…please send large unmarked bills (or small marked ones) immediately…
Well said, Dennis. I don’t want to rag on the blogger who gave Mark a Dish-a-lanche, but as a general rule whenever you start sounding like Andrew Sullivan it’s time to switch to decaf.
I’ve noted some of my many, many objections to this nominee elsewhere, so I’ll just mention that Bush is making an awfully big gamble here. If Republicans give Bush the high level of trust he’s demanding, and Justice Miers subsequently starts ruling like Souter, then I suspect a lot of conservatives will give up, not just on Bus, but on the Republicans generally. That’s a scary scenario, and if the Pres had nominated someone else I doubt that I’d be worrying about it at all.
But sufficient unto the day, and all that. In the meantime, I can’t resist mentioning that Iowahawk has put up a copy of Harriet Miers’ employment application, and it’s very funny stuff.
Oh, goodie, I love Iowahawk’s stuff…thanks for the heads up…